Signaling danger with the label “Danger, landslide” does not guarantee safety; it merely tries to prevent harm. The policy equivalent, a warning like “Danger, blast,” signals a risk even a country with strict rules would prefer to avoid. A driver might chart a cautious path through life, steering away from unpredictable rocks tumbling down a steep slope. Yet even the most imaginative screenwriter would find it hard to imagine that public authorities would push stones downhill simply because they had already warned people. This predicament has only intensified in Spain, especially after night hours and acts of betrayal, because the nation’s history shows that words and warnings can be manipulated to justify harmful moves. When leaders who were once less educated about constitutional safeguards later sit on a tribunal that clears the way for dangerous actions, a blow to the constitutional order could easily become the norm, eroding the very idea of popular sovereignty at the heart of the republic.
In a system that values checks and balances, Congress possesses the legitimate power to consider replacing a constitutional court through a vote that reflects the established proportional representation. Magna Carta itself hints at the principle that sovereignty rests with the governed, and that power must be exercised with restraint. The rhetoric of some who dismiss or fear the deepest tests of democracy only to defend a crisis through loud declarations reveals a tension between urgent political maneuvering and long-term constitutional integrity. The memory of past shocks does not license reckless moves; rather, it underscores the need for measured responses that safeguard citizens’ rights and the integrity of the institutions that serve them. The consequences of impulsive acts—no matter how dramatic the rhetoric—often pale beside the enduring damage inflicted on the population when democratic norms are endangered by overreaching or opportunistic strategies.
Framing the suppression of a peaceful Senate vote because it failed to reach a necessary majority as part of a wide-ranging power play ignores the essential guardrails that keep governance from slipping into the arena of arbitrary force. The idea that an established establishment could enact drastic measures after well-meaning parliamentary warnings crosses a line into a dangerous fiction. When the constitution is used to justify unilateral interference, the danger is not merely political disagreement; it is the erosion of public trust and the undermining of the election process itself. The danger lies in treating the state’s institutions as tools for short-term advantage rather than as safeguards for the rule of law, a reality that, in recent years, has raised concerns about how power is exercised and how accountability is maintained across the political spectrum. The condition of the nation’s democratic health hinges on careful, principled action that respects both the letter and the spirit of the constitution, even in moments of heightened tension and disagreement.